Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 284 (UTT)

SATISH KUMAR SAINI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-05-28

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT ; U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus permitting the petitioner to deposit the compensation amount in the Treasury in pursuance of the Government Order and the “Amal Daramad Prapatra” (mutation paper) be issued in the name of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the land, including that of the petitioner, was acquired by the State way back in the year 1961-62 for establishing a Public Sector Undertaking –Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. The land acquired was handed over to the said organization. Compensation for the same also appears to have been paid to the petitioner. Now after more than 40 years, the petitioner wants his land to be returned to him, as the same remained unutilized. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that way back in the year 1970, the State Government has taken a decision that out of total land acquired, 135 acres of land was vacant and was to be reverted back to the original tenure holders, including the petitioner. In continuation thereof, a Government Order was issued on 21.02.1971 for the said purpose. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 denied the same. A reference has been given in paragraph 3(c) of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of BHEL to show that the possession of said khasra nos. were delivered to respondent no. 5 on 14.03.1962. It has also been mentioned in paragraph no. 3(e) of said counter affidavit that in view of the decision given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C. Padma vs Deputy Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 627 , and the decisions given by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition no. 1634 (M/S) of 2008; Smt. Gurbachan Kaur vs State of Uttarakhand and Writ Petition no. 1047 (M/S) of 2008; Rakesh vs State of Uttarakhand and others, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to the dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State drew attention of this court towards paragraph nos. 1634 (M/S) of 2008; Smt. Gurbachan Kaur vs State of Uttarakhand and Writ Petition no. 1047 (M/S) of 2008; Rakesh vs State of Uttarakhand and others, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to the dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State drew attention of this court towards paragraph nos. 8, 9, 12, 13, 17 and 18 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State to show that a joint inspection committee of the then U.P. Legislative Council inspected the area and gave its report to the then Government that apart from the establishment of BHEL, there is no other attraction for the industrial houses to establish their units in and around BHEL and accordingly it was proposed by the committee that the land acquired for establishment of BHEL be returned and revested in the original tenure holders/land owners. The then U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation approved the recommendation of the said joint committee and informed the then State Government that it will not be possible in the near future to develop the entire industrial area. After getting approval of the then U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation, it was decided that leaving 100 acres of land for the industrial development in the future, rest of 135 acres of land be disposed of, and accordingly the Government after due deliberation, was of the view that since said 135 acres of land will not be required for industrial purposes and as such the same be disposed of. The G.O. dated 02.03.1971 was issued by the then Government of U.P., whereby, it was decided that 135 acres of original acquired land for establishment of BHEL be handed over to their original tenure holders. In compliance of said G.O., the SLAO, Saharanpur took steps for returning the land to the original land holders. This exercise was done upto the year 1994. As soon as the D.M., Haridwar came to know about the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, he took immediate steps for not revesting the acquired land and directed for taking appropriate action against the employees/officers who had undertaken such exercise. The D.M., Haridwar also directed for refund of the compensation amount deposited by the original land owners. As soon as the D.M., Haridwar came to know about the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, he took immediate steps for not revesting the acquired land and directed for taking appropriate action against the employees/officers who had undertaken such exercise. The D.M., Haridwar also directed for refund of the compensation amount deposited by the original land owners. In terms of the orders of the D.M., Haridwar for refund of the deposited compensatory amount to the land owners, steps were taken by the authorities to return the same to the original land owners. Land of the petitioner was also acquired for establishment of BHEL under the Land Acquisition Act and as such the petitioner is not entitled for revesting of his land. The Khasra numbers of the petitioner were acquired for establishment of BHEL and presently the said land is recorded in the name of BHEL in revenue records. In view of facts and circumstances narrated above, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner for revesting of his land, which was originally acquired for establishment of BHEL is not maintainable and hence denied, as per the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State. 6. It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Padma and others vs Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and others, (1997) 2 SCC 627 , that after the compensation has been paid and possession has been taken over by the Government, the land of the claimants cannot be returned to them. 7. It has further been held by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Bashir Ahmed and others vs State of Uttarakhand and others, 2013 (2) U.D. 168 *, that the land once acquired vests in the acquiring authority free from all encumbrances and the erstwhile owners of the land whose land was so acquired cannot approach the court of law for re-conveyance of the said land in any manner. The erstwhile owners cannot claim for the reassignment of the excess land as a matter of right. The only option that they have is to take part in the public auction, if the acquiring authority decides to dispose of the excess land in that manner. 8. Similar controversy has been resolved by the coordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition no. 1047 of 2008 (M/S), Rakesh vs State of Uttarakhand and others. 9. The only option that they have is to take part in the public auction, if the acquiring authority decides to dispose of the excess land in that manner. 8. Similar controversy has been resolved by the coordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition no. 1047 of 2008 (M/S), Rakesh vs State of Uttarakhand and others. 9. In view of above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.